Martin 1

Karlee Martin
Dr. Paitakes
10/27/2010
Article Critique
“Offenders Incarcerated for Crimes Against Juveniles”
David Finkelhor and Richard Ormrod; Pages 1-12
 Martin 2

Source: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/191028.pdf
 Martin 3

MAJOR ISSUES

Crimes against juveniles have been receiving more and more attention as the years pass.
Authorities find it difficult when it comes to punishing and deterring juvenile offenders.
“Offenders Incarcerated for Crimes Against Juveniles” by David Finkelhor and Richard Ormrod
compose an article that deals with researches of juvenile and adult inmates. The Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is committed to improving the responses of
authorities by making use of the data produced. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention outline statistics that show the nature of the crimes, the age, gender and race of
offenders and victims a long with the severity and length of sentences imposed; these statistics
are used to inform and better the actions of authorities.

SUMMARY OF ARTLICE

Children are at risk for a number of crimes. These crimes include child abuse, neglect,
violent acts, and sexual abuse. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention are
committed to responding with appropriate action, and preventing future crimes. Between 1991
and 1997, the amount of violent juvenile offenders incarcerated has increased from nineteen to
twenty-two percent within the violent inmate population. The Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) have done numerous researches to improve their efforts and
results. The more insight on these crimes will help the nation take the best and most suitable
actions.

In response to the sexual abuse children are receiving, the media coverage has increased
significantly. To ease the public, and of course the victims, there have been amore offenders
arrested and prosecuted. By 1997, more than one-fifth of inmates incarcerated for violent crimes
were sex offenders (of juveniles) in state prisons. Additionally, sixty-five percent of incarcerated
sex offenders were juvenile sex offenders, while only seven percent of the incarcerated sex
offenders were adult sex offenders. The amount of imprisoned juvenile sex offenders is
significantly higher than the amount of imprisoned adult sex offenders.

Disturbingly, forty-eight percent of juvenile sex offenders had violated someone in their
family or someone living in the same residence, and thirty-eight percent had victimized someone
 Martin 4

they knew. On the other hand, a majority of adult sex offenders (fifty-four percent) had
committed a crime against a total stranger.

More over, sixty-four percent of juvenile sex offenders were white, while fifty nine
percent of adult sex offenders were a minority (nonwhite). Fifty-one percent of juvenile sex
offenders were over the age of thirty, while sixty-sixty percent of adult sex offenders were under
the age of thirty. Lastly, fifty-six percent of juvenile sex offenders were married and sixty
percent of adult offenders have never been married. This concludes that juvenile sex offenders
appear to be more of an average adult, while adult sex offenders appear to be more of the
irresponsible, ignorant young adult.

In relation to the reason for abuse, a majority of juvenile sexual offenders were once
physically or sexually abused themselves. This helps one gain some insight on the motive of the
juvenile offender and his or her mens rae. However, there is no justification for juvenile sexual
abuse or sexual abuse in general

On another note, sentences were not as harsh for offenders who targeted teenagers. The
article gives reason for this by stating that teenagers may be partly responsible for their
victimization. However, there is no suggesting evidence that concludes that offenders who
violate preadolescents are given lighter sentences.

The second part of the article focuses on the characteristics of sex offenders. The first
table shows the statistics for 1997 of violent offenders in state prisons, and is organized by the
type of offense and the age of victims. Of all the violent crimes (436,028), eleven percent was
against children under the age of twelve; eleven percent was against children from the age of
thirteen to seventeen (meaning twenty-two percent of violent crimes are against juveniles), and
seventy-eight percent were against people eighteen or older. Out of the 436,028 violent crimes,
rape or sexual assault accounted for 87,807; kidnapping accounted for 11,294, assault accounted
for 91,00, homicide accounted for 128,205; and robbery accounted for 116,780. When looking at
the rape and sexual assault category, thirty-nine percent of victims were twelve or younger;
thirty-two percent of victims were thirteen to seventeen, and twenty-nine percent were over the
age of eighteen. Thirteen percent of victims of kidnapping were twelve or younger; fourteen
percent were thirteen to seventeen, and seventy three percent were over the age of eighteen. Six
percent of victims of assault were under the age of twelve; seven percent were thirteen to
seventeen; and eighty-seven percent were eighteen or older. Four percent of children under the
age of twelve were victims of homicide; six percent was accounted for children thirteen to
seventeen; and ninety percent of victims were eighteen or older. Lastly, one percent of victims of
robbery were under twelve, three percent of victims were thirteen to seventeen; and ninety six
percent were eighteen or older.

The second figure in the article is done in pie charts; each pie chart is for a different age
group and shows the different percentages of the different violent crimes encountered. The first
 Martin 5

chart is for victims twelve and younger. Seventy two percent accounts for rape or assault; eleven
percent accounts for assault; ten percent accounts for kidnapping; three percent accounts for
homicide; three percent accounts for robbery and the remaining two percent accounts for other
violent crimes. In the second chart, victims from thirteen to seventeen are represented. Fifty-right
percent of violent crimes were rape or sexual assault; eighteen percent were accounted for
homicide; fourteen percent were accounted for assault; eight percent were accounted for robbery;
and three percent were accounted for kidnapping. The last chart was for victims eighteen and
older. Thirty four percent of crimes were homicide; thirty-three percent were accounted for
robbery; twenty-three were accounted for assault; seven percent were accounted for rape or
sexual assault; two percent were accounted for kidnapping; and one percent was accounted for
other violent crimes.

The next figure is about the victims’ ages classified by the offenders’ races. Black
offenders targeted five percent of children twelve or younger; eight percent of thirteen to
seventeen year olds, and eighty seven percent of eighteen year olds. White offenders targeted
thirteen percent of victims twelve or younger; seventeen percent of victims thirteen to seventeen;
and seventy percent of victims were over the age of eighteen. Forty eight percent of offenders for
all age groups were black, forty-six percent of offenders for all age groups were white, and the
remaining six percent of offenders were of a different race.

In the fourth figure and fifth, the age of offenders at arrest were classified by the age
group the inmate targeted. Fifty-one percent of juvenile offenders were over the age of thirty,
and only thirty four percent of adult offenders were over the age of thirty. The peak of offender
age for victims twelve or younger was about thirty two, while the peak age of offenders of
victims’ age thirteen to seventeen, and over eighteen was about twenty. For offenders seventeen
and younger, three percent were arrested for crimes against children twelve and younger;
nineteen were arrested for crimes against children thirteen to seventeen, and seventy eight were
arrested for crimes against people eighteen and older. For offenders eighteen to twenty four, five
percent of victims were twelve or younger; eleven percent were thirteen to seventeen; and eighty
four percent of victims were over the age of eighteen. For offenders twenty five to twenty nine,
eleven percent of victims were twelve or younger; seven percent of victims were thirteen to
seventeen; and eighty three percent were eighteen or older. For the thirty to thirty four age group,
fifteen percent of victims were twelve or younger; eight percent of victims were thirteen to
seventeen; and seventy seven percent of victims were eighteen or older. Within the thirty five to
thirty nine age group, sixteen percent of victims were twelve or younger; twelve percent of
victims were thirteen to seventeen; and seventy two percent of victims were eighteen or older.
For the age group of forty to forty four, twenty three percent of victims were twelve or younger;
fifteen percent of victims were thirteen to seventeen; and sixty two percent of victims were
eighteen or older. For the age group forty five to forty nine, sixteen percent of victims were
twelve years old or younger; sixteen percent of the victims were thirteen to seventeen; and sixty
nine percent of the victims were under the age of eighteen. When the fifty to fifty four age group
 Martin 6

is looked at, thirty two percent of the victims were under the age of twelve; twelve percent of the
victims were thirteen to seventeen; and fifty six percent o the victims were eighteen or older.
When the fifty five to fifty nine age group is looked at, forty five percent of the victims are
twelve or younger; eleven percent is thirteen to seventeen and forty four percent is eighteen or
older. Lastly, offenders sixty and over victimize forty percent children; fourteen percent of
victims are thirteen to seventeen; and forty six percent of victims are eighteen and over. Overall,
the older the offender, the more likely they are to victimize a younger child.

One of the most significant differences between juvenile offenders and adult offenders
was the victim offender relationship. Forty percent of juvenile offenders against children twelve
and under victimized their own children or step children. Eighteen percent victimized a young
relative and only five percent victimized a stranger. Twenty one percent of offenders victimized
their own children when the age was thirteen to seventeen; nine percent victimized a relative;
and another nine victimized a spouse of a girlfriend. The amount of strangers victimized by
adults was fifty four percent, and relatives accounted for sixteen percent. However, these
statistics are for violent crimes in general, and one must keep in mind that a majority of violent
crimes towards juveniles are sexual. Similarly, figure seven shows that offenders imprisoned for
homicide against children twelve and younger, often committed the homicide against one of their
children, but homicides committed against teens were not due to offenders within the family.

Furthermore, when the gender of the victim is taken into consideration to the overall
population of violent crimes more females constituted all of juvenile violent crimes, and more
males constituted for all adult violent crimes. Seventy six percent of juvenile victims were
female, while sixty four percent of adult victims were males. Strangely, when it comes to
homicide, juvenile offenders target females more, when adults target males more. However,
juvenile victims of sexual assault are more likely to be males. Another major difference among
the crimes committed is that juvenile crimes were less likely to involve a weapon. Eight percent
of crimes against children twelve and under involved a weapon; twenty seven percent of crimes
against teens involved a weapon; and fifty one percent of crimes against adult involved a
weapon. Similarly, crimes against juveniles were less likely to involve multiple people when
compared to crimes against adults.

On another note, juvenile offenders are less likely to recommit crimes when compared to
other offenders. In state prisons, seventy-two percent of adult offenders are likely to recommit
crimes; sixty one percent of offenders against teens; and fifty nine percent of offenders against
children.

Furthermore, the number of offenders against juveniles have been increasing, however,
the number of inmates in general has been increasing (thirty three percent increase from 1991-
1997). In addition, there was an increase from nineteen percent to twenty two percent in all
violent juvenile offenders. Similarly, the numbers of inmates incarcerated for juvenile homicide
 Martin 7

and sexual assault is increasing as well. However, the number of sex offenders is increasing at a
slower rate.

When the sentences for juvenile offenders are looked at, they are often criticized for
being too lenient. However, one must take into consideration that they are less likely to use
weapons, and this decreased the sentences severity significantly. Only twelve percent of
offenders against children receive the death sentence, while nine percent of offenders against
teens receive death sentences and seventeen percent of offenders against adults receive the death
sentence. In regards to length of the sentences, adults and juvenile offenders do not differ much.
The average for juvenile offenders is 180 months versus 240 months. However, when it comes to
homicides juvenile offenders are more likely to serve a longer sentence.

Overall, crimes against juveniles make up a decent percentage of crimes, and it is

continuing to grow. The juvenile offending inmates have distinguishing features: a majority of
sex offenders commit crimes against family members or people they know. They are mainly
white, have jobs, married and less recidivistic when compared to the other violent offenders.
These offenders’ sentences are criticized for not being harsh enough; however, it is probable that
these offenders need treatment more than punishment.

EVALUATION: MY OPINION, AGREEMENT, DISAGREEMENT

The article makes it clear that the nation is responding more to sexual crimes, but the
language of the article seems to be a bit deceiving. For instance, the article states that one-fifth of
inmates incarcerated for violent crimes were sex offenders. This initially makes one believe that
one-fifth of the general prison population is incarcerated for sexual offenses against juveniles;
however, the article never states what percentage of violent offenders make up the population of
the state prisons. This statistic is misleading, although violent offenders are a significant portion
of inmates.

Another misleading statistic is that sixty-five percent of the incarcerated sex offenders are
juvenile sex offenders, while seven percent are adult sex offenders. This statistic does not seem
convincing seeing that the article excludes the remaining twenty-eight percent of incarcerated
sex offenders.

When examining the targeted victims of juvenile sex offenders, compared to the victims
of adult sex offenders, there is a major difference. Juvenile sex offenders prey of people they are
familiar with, while adult sex offenders prey on the unknown. The difference in victims shows a
different motive. In my opinion, juvenile sex offenders’ motives seem to stem from
dysfunctional childhoods and show a more deranged way of thinking with underlying mental
issues. Since adult sex offenders more commonly victimize strangers, the crime does seem as
thought out, and may of stemmed from anger, or abuse of alcohol and/or drugs. Once again, that
 Martin 8

is just my opinion—I would of liked to see some sort of explanation on why juvenile sex
offenders are more likely to violate someone they are familiar with, and why adult sex offenders
are more likely to violate a random person.

I did not find it surprising that a majority of adult sex offenders were under the age of
thirty, unmarried and a minority. It seems more likely that a young, unmarried individual would
sexually abuse a random adult. I also did not find it surprising that a majority of child sex
offenders were white, over thirty and married. As previously said, I believe that juvenile
offenders have more of an underlying mental issue, and seeing that a majority were older
(meaning they have more integrity), were married, and were previously abused as a child
themselves.

I found it extremely disgusting that offenders of teenagers receive lighter sentences; and I
found it even more disgusting that the article justified this by saying teenagers were partly
responsible. I believe that no matter how misleading a teen may be, no one asks to be sexually
abused, and this should not be taken into consideration when determining a sentence of a sex
offender.

Moreover, when looking at the data of violent crimes separated by age group and type of
crime, I did not find it surprising that juvenile victims were the highest for rape or sexual assault
when compared to kidnapping, assault, homicide and robbery. Twenty two percent of violent
crimes are targeted at juveniles and seventy one percent of the twenty two percent were victims
of rape or sexual assault were under the age of eighteen, while only twenty nine percent were
adults. When examining the data the pie charts supplied, the types of crimes different age groups
encountered were directly laid out. It was interesting, but unsurprising to see the high percentage
of crimes dealing with rape and sexual assault that juveniles’ face. It was also interesting to see
that kidnapping, homicide and assault were equally distributed for the most part in the adult
group, and that rape accounted for a small percent of crimes against adults.

When looking at the third figure, it seems that white offenders target more juveniles for
violent offenses than black offenders, but black offenders are more violent (but not by much)
than white offenders. However, it is interesting to see how different races target different age
groups. I cannot theorize an explanation for why black people are more likely to target adults
when compared to black people, and why white people are more likely to target juveniles than
black people. It seems that black people enjoy the act of violence more than whites, and whites
enjoy preying on children more than blacks. Additionally, when examining the data from figure
four, it is interesting that the peak age for offenders victimizing children twelve and under was
32, while the peak age for offenders victimizing people from thirteen to over eighteen was
around twenty. I am curious to why there is such a big gap in the peak age when comparing
offenders of twelve year olds and younger, to the victims thirteen to seventeen. Similarly, the
data from figure shows that is more likely for an older offender to victimize a child under twelve.
However, there are some odd changes, for instance, for the age group forty five to forty nine,
 Martin 9

sixteen percent of the victims are under the age of twelve, when the victims under the age of
twelve for the age group fifty five to fifty nine is forty five percent. It is odd how there is such a
difference n the percentage of victims under the age of twelve for groups of offenders only ten
years apart.

When figure six and seven are examined, it shows that a handful of juvenile offenders
victimize their own children or step children. This is not surprising because it is not unusual for
juvenile offenders to also be victims of abuse. On a similar note, homicide victims under twelve
are often victims of their family; however teenage victims of homicide are not killed due to
offenders within the family. In my opinion, this may be caused by post-traumatic stress disorder
that happens to a mother shortly after pregnancy.

When the victims are deeply discussed, I found it strange that females made up a majority
of the victims for violent juvenile crimes. However, it was no surprise the juvenile crimes were
less likely to involve weapons and multiple people. This goes to show that offenders do not need
to rely on outside sources to prey on their victims. Moreover, in response to the recidivism rates,
I was shocked at first that juvenile offenders are less likely to recommit a crime, however, the
rate is still high and I am not impressed.

Even though the number of incarcerated juvenile offenders is increasing; the overall
number of inmates of increasing at the same time. This is reassuring that the number of violent
offenders being imprisoned is rising, however, it does not fully assure me that authorities are
taking any special approach to punish and deter sex offenders. Moreover, when the sentences for
offenders are looked at, I think it is absurd that juvenile offenders’ sentences are less severe.
Although they are less likely to use a weapon, the intent of their crime is pure evil in my eyes.
However, it does make sense that more adult offenders receive the death penalty because their
crimes are often more brutal.

In conclusion, juvenile offenders have different characteristics than adult offenders. They
more likely to victimize family, they are mostly white, employed and married. These offenders
appear to lead normal lives, but they are truly deranged in the head. I do agree with the article in
terms that these offenders may need help and treatment more than punishment, however, I do not
think that should free them of a sentence. I believe juvenile offenders should be given the most
severe sentence; regardless of there is a weapon involved. They should be confined with other
juvenile offenders and undergo sever treatment and counseling while incarcerated.